December 2, 2011

Sayeth Scott Walker. (Compare Jesus: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.")

The rule applies inside the Capitol, where lengthy, noisy, wild protests raged last winter. Outside the Capitol — where there have been many spontaneous gatherings of tens of thousands — the permit requirement kicks it at 100. Even worse:

Groups holding demonstrations could be charged for the costs of having extra police on hand for the event. Costs associated with a counterprotest could be charged to that second group. The costs would be $50 per hour per Capitol Police officer - costs for police officers from outside agencies would depend on the costs billed to the state. The police could require an advance payment as a requirement for getting a permit and also could require liability insurance or a bond....

Any damage or cleanup after a demonstration could be charged to organizers. During the court fight earlier this year over access to the Capitol, Walker's administration said the demonstrators had done $7.5 million in damage to the building with the signs and other wear and tear. But almost immediately the administration sharply backpedaled from that claim, conceding the damage was significantly less.

Conservative politicians, forced to meet in Madison, Wisconsin, have the problem that the sudden, troublesome crowds consist overwhelmingly of their antagonists. The Governor's seemingly neutral rules obviously fall heavily on his opponents. The stricter the limitations — and these are absurdly strict — the more non-neutral they really are. But even if you can pretend these rules are as neutral as they look on the surface and need only be reasonable to satisfy the First Amendment, these rules are plainly unreasonable.

This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights.

May be he can have his opponents declared as terrorists and have Obama arrest them without due process.

If crowds gathering is spontaneous then there is no one in charge, however if the teamsters want to show up, perhaps they can pay for the privilege? It seems this is a way to have people in charge identify themselves in an official capacity instead of hiding behind "spontaneous" gathering.

The correct recourse is for people to vote against any group that destroys, or wastes the city's resources.

Can't everyone just vote? It takes 10 minutes one time and that's all that matters anyway.

Is nobody busy these days? When you are spending hours/days protesting, that means someone else is busy working to support the village, while you are playing hippie again. They are working like slaves to carry your load. Get to work, then vote - one time - one day - done.

If it really was a village, these people would be exiled to save the village from starvation.

"This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights."

Free speech isn't free. This new rule is an expression of taxpayers' frustration with footing the bills - whatever they amount to - for the costs of protesters' security and for property damage to the Capitol.

So how do we then allow open access to the capitol to ALL citizens, not just those who disagree with Governor Walker? How do we ensure that the taxpayers of Wisconsin do not flip the bill for massive security costs as well as the cost to clean up the capitol? How do we hold people accountable for their actions?

I am not saying I necessarily agree with these new rules, but the capitol is a place for all residents -- not just the folks in Madison -- and with any public resource it has to be managed and maintained.

The protest crowd really does need to consider these aspects before it cries "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" because all of our freedoms also come with a measure of responsibility and reasonableness by the individual.

I also contend that there is a significant difference between a single large, organized protest where definative ideas are expressed and the juvenile protest theater of the capitol occupation and the Solidarity Singers.

This won't lead to a single recall signature that wasn't going to be there in the first place. The protest antics have angered the silent majority in this state and most of them don't mind seeing a little pushback by the governor....they have been wanting this for quite some time. Their general perception is that security fees and permits are an uber-reasonable thing for very large groups of people in a very small space even if they don't match up to someone else's perception of the law.

Madison, as a city, is a nightmare for a Republican governor or government -- with the government itself (e.g., public employee uniions) and the University as the dominant industries. I don't know what you can do about it, but it is very dangerous for demoncracy when the capital is completely dominated by one faction, when the populace as a whole is evenly divided.

"Demonstrations in February and March over Walker's legislation to repeal most union bargaining for most public employees drew tens of thousands of participants, boosting extra law enforcement costs to $8 million."

Why should Michael Haz and Allen S have to pay for Allie, garage mahal, and Lukedog's free speech?

Why not just crack down on existing violations like littering, vandalism, disturbing the peace, etc.? Those are the real problems, are they not? If you start issuing citations for the actual problems, people will cause problems less often, require less supervision, and supply revenue to pay for the few problems there will be.

If the government had acted competently, the protests would never have gotten out of control. Instead, they cowered back, didn't enforce the law, and, unsurprisingly, problems arose. The rule of law isn't just for sometimes.

I know the people I work with would never be able to spare that kind of time to hanging around chanting. You see, they are busy working to pay taxes - not consume them.

"You obviously have no idea what you are talking about."

I know about working, paying taxes and respecting my community. The protesters demonstrate little knowledge of real work as most people have to do it to support their "demands".

You get one vote, that's what matters. Use it. It only takes a few minutes and doesn't take away from the community you think you are supporting. Respect the real "hard working laborers in the fields" for once, could you? It's not all about you.

Well Allie, All you have to do is walk through GEF 1 2 or 3 and see the distinct difference between "working" and being employed. For most, it's the latter.

As a PI I would on an almost daily basis be in state and local buildings. The hardest workers are in courthouses, particularly clerks of courts. They can be grumpy but my guinea charm would usually bring them along. State offices are the worst, people just sitting around scratching their nuts. And you can rant..but what I just said is true.

"This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights."

Really? Let's look at the White House:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. Park Police say they have arrested 91 protesters in front of the White House, including some in wheelchairs who chained themselves to a fence.The protesters are calling on the president to support legislation that would give people with disabilities in need of long-term care alternatives to nursing homes.

Sgt. David Schlosser says a large group gathered on a sidewalk outside the White House on Monday without a protest permit required for groups of more than 25 demonstrators.

If the government had acted competently, the protests would never have gotten out of control. Instead, they cowered back, didn't enforce the law, and, unsurprisingly, problems arose. The rule of law isn't just for sometimes.

Good point, Freeman. The same is true for most of the Occupy protests.

Most public employees have no idea how hard the rest of their fellow citizens work to support them. They would never change places with the average worker, because they are living on the cream. That's what all this is about. The rest of us are saying they do not deserve such great deals far and above what the average worker gets. It's a liberal idea: equality.

"Law enforcement is like all hard and stuff.""Do you know how busy we would be trying to catch burglars, muggers, rapists, murderers, vandals, drunks, abusers, molesters, reckless drivers, and all the rest?" "Can you imagine?!""And some of you are complaining that we don't spend time catching them. Obviously trying to catch all those people is futile, so we're proposing a new law.""When you want to leave your house, you need to go online to our website and get prior approval.""And you can use your credit card to pay for the extra law enforcement you'll be using up by going outside.""It's only fair."

I guess I don't understand what all the hubbub is all about. The Capitol Singers do not have permit to fill the rotunda every day with their so called singing. Have you ever been to the capitol and tried to conduct business there when those yahoos are singing? At some point I want my government to work - not just in theory by showing up but in actuality in an environment that is conducive to work. Having those yahoos sing everyday is not necessary for them to protest. Just like sleeping in a park is not necessary to protest.

If the teamsters can come and park their semis on the square they can pay money to have the police there to make sure there is no trouble. These folks have had a free ride for too long. If the Tea Party wants to have a rally these same rules will apply to them also.

These folks have made plans for rallies on Facebook and promote well in advance and so now someone has to take responsibility for all the extra work they make for the municipality/state. If the City of Madison wants to not charge them, which I am sure will happen, then the city will eat the extra costs. The State of Wisconsin just wants to recoup their costs.

My guess is that protesters will be told to stay off the Capitol grounds and stay in the street and on the sidewalks across from the Capitol and then they won't need to worry about these extra costs because those areas are considered the City of Madison and not the Capitol. Problem solved!

Sorry Ann, I believe you have your underwear in a bundle for no good reason!

This is all a win-win for Walker. If the Madison losers protest in violation of the permit rules, Walker gets to enforce the law and be seen as "reasonable" in doing so all while reinforcing the image of the Madison losers being the WI Dem party in the minds of normal people. WIN.

If they don't protest then they are shown to be impotent in the face of his assertion of power and everybody truly knows who really runs things in WI, and it ain't the protesters. WIN.

Freeman, you'll recall that the Madison police belong to the public employee union, and they're on the protestors' side. Maybe you're suggesting that Walker deploy the state police to enforce littering laws; oh wait, public employee union members again.

I don't see the great inconvenience of applying for a permit 72 hours before a protest.

And when I first read the title to this post, with quotes around it, I thought that Walker had actually said those words in the quotes, and he was mocking scripture while boasting of some god-like ability to impose his will through this policy. Those quote marks seem somewhat deceptive to me; and Althouse seems overwrought.

"Why should Michael Haz and Allen S have to pay for Allie, garage mahal, and Lukedog's free speech?"

Kit said...

"Because it's what we do for each other."

Then do something for Michael and Allen - ask them directly, to their faces, to pay for your police protection and the cost of cleaning up the tape residue you leave on the Veterans' memorial. Don't coerce the money out of them through taxation.

Anyone who thinks having to apply for a permit is "craven repression" needs to take a sabbatical in China. Maybe they'll let you watch the organs being harvested, to be transplanted into party apparatchiks, immediately after a mass-execution of political prisoners.

"Is it not already against the law in Madison to go around screaming and purposely disturbing other people? "

What is this thing you call law?

All I know is some people can do whatever they want, wherever and for as long as they want. This extends from simple harassment, incessant obstruction of the public, all the way to destruction of property and assault. It's like the freaking middle ages, so naturally the authorities will eventually devolve to deal with it.

Our peaceful public square is maintained voluntarily by good people who respect each other and their community. We vote fairly, and accept the results to avoid fighting it out in the streets. Some are refusing that standard. The resulting mess will their fault, not the fault of those forced to maintain the peace.

Lets not loose sight of who is violating the trust first. No one is being oppressed, they just don't like the decisions we all came to fairly and peacefully, so the throw a tantrum.

Allie, I'll take your word..so the count is 1! Unfortunately she worked for a loser, which makes her hard work even more noble.

Take a stroll through any state office building. If we want to have an honest discussion we need to take it off one employee who I assume is your daughter. I have no desire to debate unless there's intellectual honesty. I'm telling you what I saw on a daily basis..you tell me about your daughter..come on!

AllenS: I commend you for your even tempered comments on this blog and your unerring identification of bullshit, nonsense, political correctness, silliness and bald stupidity. It must be quite amazing living amongst people who are out of their minds in love with themselves.

"Freeman Hunt said...Is it not already against the law in Madison to go around screaming and purposely disturbing other people? That's weird."

Freeman, while usually the voice of reason among the noise...you're off base here. It simply is not practical to arrest hundreds...or thosands...or tens of thousands of people. The better solution is to plan and permit.

I do agree that the state was way to lenient with protestors...allowing pretty much anytime, anywhere occupation of public space.

Allie, that perfectly demonstrates my point. There are millions out there who work all day sweating (not figuratively), standing, lifting, carrying, and struggling to get a job done and going home exhausted, and dirty. They get up the next day and do it again.

You have no idea what hard work is, or how insulting it is to tell such people that those shuffling paper and sitting around discussing ideas between lunch breaks at Starbucks are being abused by asking them to pay a little more for the health care they get. You are so far removed from such people, that you really think a hard job means getting your makeup smudged.

Allie, Your silence about state workers is a tacit admission of my observations.

Please understand, I have worked for the Federal and County govt. I have worked for large corporations and a large law firm. And, I operated my own small biz fro 30 years. I have lived in 7 different states in 3 time zones. my wife was a very hard working Federal Probation Officer. There are hard working govt. employees, but they are a distinct minority. I don't know how my bride did it. She worked her ass off, working 50-60 hour weeks while some colleagues just wandered their office drinking coffee and talking football all fucking day. The private sector and public sector are 2 separate realities. And I think you know it.

Allie, that perfectly demonstrates my point. There are millions out there who work all day sweating (not figuratively), standing, lifting, carrying, and struggling to get a job done and going home exhausted, and dirty. They get up the next day and do it again.

You have no idea what hard work is, or how insulting it is to tell such people that those shuffling paper and sitting around discussing ideas between lunch breaks at Starbucks are being abused by asking them to pay a little more for the health care they get. You are so far removed from such people, that you really think a hard job means getting your makeup smudged.

12/2/11 10:54 AM Bagoh, you can't be serious. Do you KNOW what nurses do in an 8 or 12 hour shift? You think no "dirty work " is involved in nursing?! Have you cleaned up vomit, sputum, blood , feces off of a human being? Have you performed bone jarring crunching CPR on a patient who is spewing stomach contents into your mouth?

If you did that, the protesters would scream that their free speech rights were being violated by being cited for those civic violations. They'll scream that they are being singled out for the civic violations to stop them from exercising their right to free speech.

A friend of mine is a bricklayer and he used to get outraged when he had a job near a govt office because he could see the govt workers buying three newspapers a day to read during work in their offices.

Requirements in MN capitol (except OWS assholes who DID none of this and obeyed no rules):

"Case in point: The “Tax Cut Rally,” which has been held each year on the Capitol Mall in St. Paul.

The process starts with a multiple-page registration form. The questions include the name of the organization, purpose of the event, planned activities and expected number of attendees; the questions go on and on.

For our “Tax Cut Rally” in May, we had to provide portable toilets and trash receptacles, along with a security plan and liability insurance.

And in order to proceed, we sponsors had to agree that posters, signs and banners would not be attached to or supported by any state property. No items would be offered for sale, nor would there be any solicitation for contributions or any forms of advertising. There would be no standing or climbing on any public monuments or structures. No stickers!

And all props and equipment needed for the event must be described in the application.

No balloons, no candles, no open flames or smoke can be used for the event. A maximum noise level of 85 decibels was to be strictly enforced. Electrical needs must be outlined as part of the application process, and all cords must be secured to floors only, using only 3M No. 471 tape. No masking tape is allowed.

Sleeping or lying down is prohibited at all times on any paved or improved areas — including but not limited to streets, roads, sidewalks and benches. The sponsors must agree to leave the space in the same condition as it was found and are required to remove all materials and debris after the event.

And that’s just for the state permit. A permit for assembly also was needed from St. Paul, and any event banners needed to be approved in writing from the St. Paul Public Works Department.

The seven-page application needed to be reviewed and approved by the chief of police before the permit could be finalized and the event publicized."

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=1235&view=chapter

"This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights."

Here's a thought. Why don't the people of Wisconsin move their capital to Rhinelander?

Rhinelander is a big union town. The county seat. I grew up in Rhinelander, there are Recall Walker signs all over from what I hear. But keep deluding yourself into thinking that only Madison wants Walker gone.

"I love how bagoh preaches how other people aren't working hard, as he posts at Althouse all day."

I worked like that for 30 years before I got enough capital to hire other people and give them a chance to do the same. Now I'm lucky enough that I can do whatever I want all day. Some times that's hard manual work, sometimes it's educating you, like today.

I worked hard, long and dirty to create everything I have. I never would have considered trying to get something I wanted by standing around chanting for other hard working people to give it to me.

I'm expressing a point of view I know first-hand, not not like as others do, pretending to represent people I don't hang with, don't really care about, but expect to pay for my needs.

There are millions out there who work all day sweating (not figuratively), standing, lifting, carrying, and struggling to get a job done and going home exhausted, and dirty. They get up the next day and do it again.

What are you arguing here? Are talking about people just starting out in the workforce who haven't had a chance to work up yet, those stuck in jobs they hate, or those who work hard but find the work sufficiently rewarding and fulfilling to stick with it?

Allie, you are right, and I apologize. Nurses are definitely outside the target of my rant. I love you guys and owe you my life, but nurses are an exception, and usually not public employees. You guys work hard and dirty. It's one of the few jobs I would not trade for any that I have done. Thanks for you work, and I'm sorry.

" Groups of four or more people must obtain permits for all activity and displays in state buildings and apply for those permits at least 72 hours in advance. The policy requires permits for 100 or more people outside the Capitol. The policy does provide some leeway for spontaneous gatherings triggered by unforeseen events."

It seems to me that what they're trying to do is prevent the sort of camping out inside the capital that went on a while back over the public employee union squabble.

I don't see how it restricts free speech *at all* to bar people from shutting down government buildings. There are employees that need to get to work and official business that needs to be accomplished regardless of any protests that may be ongoing. Honestly I wondered at the time if the employees in that building were fearful about going to work while all that was going on.

They can protest outside. This doesn't strike me as any sort of first ammendment violation at all.

"Are talking about people just starting out in the workforce who haven't had a chance to work up yet, those stuck in jobs they hate, or those who work hard but find the work sufficiently rewarding and fulfilling to stick with it?".

All three. The point is, they don't have the option to simply demand what they want, they need to earn it. They don't have the luxury of protesting, which would be like a vacation with a picnic.

If they want more, they need to show their employers that they are worth more by improving themselves and thus helping those paying them. It's a fair relationship that respects both.

You would have a hard time convincing the public that their union educators are giving them more, despite costing them far more than ever.

Ah, this will cause much bad Kharma, thereby causing the cheeseheads and their lowly Packrats to lose to THE WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS.

Tank, 2007 called and they want their Super Bowl trophy back. You don't get to call them that; that moniker is reserved for the current World Champions (a certain team from the Midwest, I believe).

And I can't get too worked up anymore about what goes on in Wisconsin politics. It's beyond parody. I'm in favor of the messy democratic (little d) process; but you guys (Big D Democrats) are trying to institute mob rule by any means possible.

"Thorley Winston said...Here’s a copy of the actual policy for those who want to read it and judge for themselves. After reading what the policy actually says, I didn’t find it to be unreasonable but YMMV."

Believe it or not, I have to go to work now. After I have someone deliver Starbucks, my secretary will bring me mimosa's and lobster bisque followed with a back rub, later a nap before my pedicure with those tiny flesh eating fish in a bowl. Finally I punch out and come home. Still no time to protest, but I wouldn't know who to protest anyway.

Meade said..."This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights."

Free speech isn't free. This new rule is an expression of taxpayers' frustration with footing the bills - whatever they amount to - for the costs of protesters' security and for property damage to the Capitol.

It's unenforceable. Which makes it worse than just a bad idea."

Meade, this is laughable. Maybe you just want to avoid a smackdown from the misses, but it is enforceable. Of course, not in it's anything goes present state. By denying assemble without permit makes it enforceable. Once you have a permit, you're all set to go. I've posted just those procedures that MN uses (selectively sadly) on Anti_tax Rallies.

"Disagree. I can't imagine being able to enter any state capitol, city hall, the U.S. Capitol and begin loudly protesting at will. Why should the general public bear the cost of police, etc. We have to get parade permits, etc. This isn't any different."

The rules need to be framed around actual problems, and narrowly tailored to be about solving *those* problems, with attention to the importance of *freedom.*

If you think you are conservative, but "freedom" isn't one of your key words, I don't like your definition of conservatism.

Yea, I don't try to do "profound". Like a good teacher, I just tell you the truth, if you don't learn anything, that's not my bad. You should probably just skip over my posts from now on. I'll send your parents a note telling them we probably can't help you.

"This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights." Heh, not just plain old 'repression' but CRAVEN. Not just plain old 'violation' but SHOCKING. I guess our friend "J" was right. AA is in the pay of those who shockingly, cravenly skewer our liberties, namely that Department of Propaganda, holding the Goebels Chair @ UW Law a/k/a 'Moscow West'. She learned her trade painting posters for SDS at AA, School of Fine Arts. AA @ AA, really all the proof needed "J"--I commend you.

"This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights."

Almost as bad as the repression of the inherent rights of those to be able to adjust the thermostat to the temperatures that the individual desires. It is a violation of the expression of free will to limit the thermostat range to less than 65 degrees. I demand my rights.

It can also take up to 45 days to get a concealed carry permit in WI. Is my right to bear arms infringed by that wait? I also have to pay $50 for that permit. Is my right infringed because I have to pay that money? Does that payment restrict those rights from those who may not have $50?

The standard retort is "speech and assembly are different than guns". However, both are enumerated in the Constitution. Nothing in that document states that one right is superior to another. So the question is if government can place reasonable regulations on some rights, why can't it place reasonable regulations on all of them? One can argue that it cannot, however, then that person needs to not pick and chose which rights they like at that particular time and circumstance.

Tosa Guy raises an interesting question, just exactly when did the State find it necessary to prohibit concealed/carry--any legislative history? Probably the shooting of one Supreme Court Justice by another--or some such shocking crime led to 5 minutes debate and passage--before the wake was held.

You may be right about Madison in the past, but you have to admit that there has been a dramatic shift in the tone of politics over the past decade. I've stood outside of the polls im my precinct for every election since 2003 (state elections), and the tone is worse each year.

Liberals may have loathed Reagan, but I don't recall books being written, or movies being produced, hoping for his assassination (as they were for Bush).

Over the past 10 year, the media has been openly complicit in mainstreaming demonization and hatred of Republicans. That, combined with current budgetary needs has created a perfect storm against Walker. My concern was not for normal times, but for times of stress.

What is the compelling state interest to restricting free speech? Is Gov Walker's plan the least restrictive means of doing it?

Actually for facially viewpoint-neutral rules the standard is much lower. It only must be demonstrated that the law or policy being challenged furthers an "important" government interest in a way that is "substantially related" to that interest.

Again, since the text of the policy has been posted and is not unreasonably long, I would ask you to highlight the specific rules you find unreasonable.

A couple of points that I think that people may want to consider should they decide to base their judgment on what the actual policy says (as opposed to the media’s reporting of it):

1) The Walker administration has said that this is a clarification on an already existing policy. I wasn’t able to find out what the policy said before it was updated yesterday but some of the particulars – such as requiring a permit and holding the event organizers responsible for any damages or additional security costs – may have already been in place. Without seeing the previous policy, it’s difficult to separate the merits of the policy itself versus the changes Walker made based on the limits of his administration’s ability to make changes to the already existing policy.

2) The requirement for a permit does not apply to a bona fide spontaneous event which is defined in the policy. Basically if it is not a regularly scheduled event or an event that was advertised and is either in response to something that happened within the preceding calendar week or an ongoing event, you’re not required to get a permit. My reading of this is by way of example you can still go down to the capitol today to protest the permit requirement changes that were released yesterday without having to get a permit but if you’re still there protesting by next Wednesday and you meet the other requirements, at that point you need to have a permit.

3) While the event organizers are responsible for the costs of law enforcement, they are expressly NOT responsible for the costs of law enforcement in response to a counter-rally. The sponsors, promoters and/or participants in the counter-rally are the ones responsible for those costs. As an example if the requirement is that for every 100 people at an event (such as a concert) you have to have one security person of police officer, the organizers have to pay for those costs. If someone organizes a counter-protest, then the organizers of the counter-protest (who are subject to the same permit requirements) have to pick the additional costs.

MM raises the very good point of it's government's responsiblity to define why a right may be regulated.

However, it is still the responsiblity of thinking individuals to argue why and how the government may have overstepped its bounds. Simply stating "my rights were violated!!" is akin to a two-year old throwing a tantrum.

Garage, that doesn't apply to "any government building." It doesn't even apply to "any county building." It applies to "specific county buildings" - ones, I will note, which mainly have little to no public area and would not permit rallies and protests either.

Again, it's what we do for each other should any of us need to speak out against perceived wrongs. I may not agree with your perceived wrong, but I’ll sure as heck defend your right to voice it. Was it wrong to tape things to the Vet’s memorial? Of course, but the cost of cleaning it is a pittance when compared to the valuable lesson you taught to many. As a vet's family member, thank you for that.

Every year, many many 4th-graders in Wisconsin make a trip to the Capitol. Usually, they go to the Geology Museum on Campus as well, and to Babcock Hall for ice Cream, or other places that the teachers deem interesting (usually meaning, someone will give them a tour).

Let's say someone who, oh, works near the Square, wants to talk to a specific 4th-grade class about, oh, I don't know, marble and how it is used in the Capitol. And that they have exhibits that show how it's mined. And examples.

Can you explain why the Government should be given ways to stop such a thing? Because that's exactly what ths pdf does.

You might think: Oh the Government would never do something like that. Uh huh.

"Again, since the text of the policy has been posted and is not unreasonably long, I would ask you to highlight the specific rules you find unreasonable."

"I will note that thus far, nobody has done this.

Two immediately jump out to me as probably unreasonable. First is the "trigger" number of people (four strikes me as unreasonably few, and who's to say a single person could "plant" himself in the group to deliberately put it over the limit/trigger, for example?) Second--and this one I need to think through, for sure, and I admit that upfront--while I'm comfortable with the posting/display restrictions and imposing the responsibility for cleanup and damage on the demonstrators, I am not comfortable with assessing charges for law enforcement, increased or otherwise, for such events.

I need to read the whole document more thoroughly and do some more thinking before I say more.

The capitol building is a finite resource owned equally by all the people of Wisconsin. Opponents of the new policies have not told us how they would manage it for all the people, not just for those whose position they like. They have not told use how they would ensure that the day-to-day business of people of Wisconsin continues -- all of the people of Wisconsin are the government. How the safety of all people working in or visiting the capitol is maintained. And how these things would be accomplished in a manner that doesn't place undue burden on the WI taxpayer.

And finally, they haven't stated why their speech and assembly are more important than anyone else's rights to the same. Because if you cannot and will not answer those questions, you don't give a shit about any else's rights.

"The right to voice grievances is not the same as some imagined 'right' to interrupt state business with endless fuckery."

My problem with this is that sometimes "endless fuckery" might what it would take. If tomorrow Wisconsin decided to ban all handguns, would proponents of 2nd Amendment rights be content to merely politely voice a grievance? Would they, or would they not, use "endless fuckery" if necessary to force redress of that grievance? For my part, I wouldn't be and I sure as hell would, respectively.

Shorter: I can't agree with that statement because I can think of too many counterexamples.

Freeman, while usually the voice of reason among the noise...you're off base here. It simply is not practical to arrest hundreds...or thosands...or tens of thousands of people. The better solution is to plan and permit.

You don't wait for things to get that out of hand. You arrest or cite people immediately. If you show that the rule of law stands from the beginning, people will be much less likely to succumb to mob rule.

And, of course, it's perfectly reasonable to have some of the other rules you mentioned such as not allowing signage to be supported by any state structures.

I think AA is proving to the ABA that she is not conservative. These requirements don't seem unreasonable to me at all. In different parts of the country, the Teaparty had to comply with much worse. In Virginia, the local Teaparty is suing to get their money back because the OWS protesters did not have to comply with the same rules.

"If tomorrow Wisconsin decided to ban all handguns, would proponents of 2nd Amendment rights be content to merely politely voice a grievance? Would they, or would they not, use "endless fuckery" if necessary to force redress of that grievance?"

Because being a liberal means you live in the wonderful world of ifs and buts.

Now if the problem is really that the police are unionized and so won't enforce the law against union aligned protesters, then the police will have demonstrated that they cannot have a union. If that were to happen, I would say that the police union should be summarily banned and government should put in place policies that forbid dealing with a police union.

Let's say someone who, oh, works near the Square, wants to talk to a specific 4th-grade class about, oh, I don't know, marble and how it is used in the Capitol. And that they have exhibits that show how it's mined. And examples.

Let's say someone who works near the Capitol wants to talk to a specific 4th-grade class about, oh, I don't know. Legalizing marijuana. Should there be any way to stop that person?

"Why do you want to give the Government Power to do this? Is increased Government Power a good thing?"

What did I say I would give to the government? Did I say power? No, of course I didn't say anything of the sort.

Because the 'government' as you say decides to limit mobs of malcontents inside the building this makes the government what? Unreasonable? Thats what we disagree about MM. I say its not unreasonable. Thats it.

I'm not giving the government 'power' it doesn't already have by the way.

You don't wait for things to get that out of hand. You arrest or cite people immediately. If you show that the rule of law stands from the beginning, people will be much less likely to succumb to mob rule.

That's true, but even the police telling kids they couldn't hold a banner over the Capitol balcony was met with outrage. That, too, was supposedly against the first amendment and unconstitutional. Remember that?

Every year, many many 4th-graders in Wisconsin make a trip to the Capitol. Usually, they go to the Geology Museum on Campus as well, and to Babcock Hall for ice Cream, or other places that the teachers deem interesting (usually meaning, someone will give them a tour).

Let's say someone who, oh, works near the Square, wants to talk to a specific 4th-grade class about, oh, I don't know, marble and how it is used in the Capitol. And that they have exhibits that show how it's mined. And examples.

Yes Allie,Most public sector jobs are just like your rendition of minute by minute lifesaving. They're more typically like the Nurse's station on night shift. You know what I mean. Oh..the blood and feces are usually dealt with by CNAs. But the protections and hubris engendered by "organized labor" Nursing has some similarities.

That's true, but even the police telling kids they couldn't hold a banner over the Capitol balcony was met with outrage. That, too, was supposedly against the first amendment and unconstitutional. Remember that?

Yes, I do. But I don't think the police should care if people yell false claims while being arrested or cited. Criminals do that sort of thing all the time. The police are supposed to ignore them.

Well, when my kids went on field trips (TRIPS!), we had to sign a consent form. Content of the talks to be seen was always included. I suspect more than a few parents would object to the content and not consent.

IF there was a 4th-grade class interested in hearing about that, and their parents all consented, though, what business is it of the Government's? I don't know why you'd have to do in the Capitol though (unlike talking about marble used in the construction of the Capitol).

Let's say someone who, oh, works near the Square, wants to talk to a specific 4th-grade class about, oh, I don't know, marble and how it is used in the Capitol. And that they have exhibits that show how it's mined. And examples.

Can you explain why the Government should be given ways to stop such a thing? Because that's exactly what ths pdf does.

It doesn't stop this at all. It just says you need to get a permit first. I would presume field trips are already permitted anyways so I don't even think this regulation would apply.

"This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights." Heh, not just plain old 'repression' but CRAVEN. Not just plain old 'violation' but SHOCKING. I guess our friend "J" was right. AA is in the pay of those who shockingly, cravenly skewer our liberties, namely that Department of Propaganda, holding the Goebels Chair @ UW Law a/k/a 'Moscow West'. She learned her trade painting posters for SDS at AA, School of Fine Arts. AA @ AA, really all the proof needed "J"--I commend you.

All members of the general public wishing to hold an event or to display an exhibit shall aplly for a permit, unless the event is a spontaneous event, as defined below. Exhibits displayed without permits may be removed; exhibits removed may or may not be returned to the owner.

"If tomorrow Wisconsin decided to ban all handguns, would proponents of 2nd Amendment rights be content to merely politely voice a grievance? Would they, or would they not, use "endless fuckery" if necessary to force redress of that grievance?"

I guess that depends on whether you think the opponents of the new collective bargaining law did themselves any favors when they were videotaped yelling “F*** you!” at a twelve year old girl.

This is for any commenter who may not yet understand that Garage's MO is to feign ignorance and repeatedly ask for proof of things he already knows.

Yes, Garage, liberala wrote books and made movies (among other things) calling for Bush's assassination, as you yourself know, given that you commented in this thread. If you have a medical condition that somehow prevents you from remembering things that don't fit with your worldview, I apologize for believing instead that you simply don't argue in good faith.

Did you think I was backhanding 2nd Amendment defenders? I wasn't. Gun rights had already been referenced in this thread, which is why I used that example. Also, we have 10 firearms in this house, three of which are for the use of our 10-year-old son. I appreciate the right to do that, and I would indeed engage in "endless fuckery" if that were necessary to defend that right. This in no way means I support the goals of the Madison protesters much less some of the garbage in which they have engaged. We're discussing here policies which are supposed to be applied across the board (if they're not, that's outrageously, outlandishly, unacceptably wrong). I'm trying to think about what I would be willing to have applied to me and what I would not be willing to have applied to me in coming up with a general policy (principal) regarding public protest. If that strikes you as rambling or if my ruminations offend you, so be it.

"Thanks for the clarification, if not the mystifying level of personal hostility."

You are welcome, and just know that I have absolutely no idea who you are or what you do, so really, its nothing personal and I apologize for sounding hostile. I am sending you a mental olive branch now.

If you're on the Capitol Square in May, you'll see 4th graders. Fourth graders learn all about Wisconsin History, and a trip to the Capitol is usually part of that, if the District can swing it. Unplanned? No, not by the teachers/school. Unannounced? I think sort of, from the POV of Capitol workers. I mean, they don't know that, say, Ladysmith Elementary is coming, but they do know it's Spring and that means 4th grade field trips. (I'm not exactly sure how this was handled this past Spring).

Note that my youngest is more than a half-decade past 4th grade. Mileage may vary now.

“All members of the general public wishing to hold an event or to display an exhibit shall aplly for a permit, unless the event is a spontaneous event, as defined below. Exhibits displayed without permits may be removed; exhibits removed may or may not be returned to the owner.”

And I think they did themselves no favor at all by doing that. I think they did great harm to their cause. They were stupid. More important, they were vile, wrong and immoral for doing that.

Then it seems that we’re in agreement: to extent that they respond to an ill-advised attempt by the Wisconsin Assembly to deprive residents of their rights under the Second Amendment by protesting (as opposed to concentrating their efforts on more effective methods), it would be better for proponents of Second Amendment rights to be civil than to engage in “endless f***ery.”